Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a basic form, I would consider intelligence the ability for an entity to make a decision. Is there any record of something with intelligence being formed through something without intelligence (such as nothing, a rock, lightning, etc.)? This is a legit question as I'm not sure.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. We're all formed from atoms, I don't think they're intelligent. Or do you mean can two unintelligent things mate (like goldfish) and create something intelligent (like an ape)? I'm confused lol
In a basic form, I would consider intelligence the ability for an entity to make a decision. Is there any record of something with intelligence being formed through something without intelligence (such as nothing, a rock, lightning, etc.)? This is a legit question as I'm not sure.
I don't know. If you are speaking from a creationist point of view then since god is so intelligent what intelligent being would have created him? See the problem?
Another example are cells. A single cell in and by itself I think can fairly be considered as non-intelligent. But it's pretty clear that intelligent things can result when cells are combined in large numbers.
As Kay02 stated, atoms are not intelligent either, but again, when large numbers of them are combined in certain ways, they can produce something that has intelligence.
Taking it a further step, I don't know that there's any evidence that the universe is intelligent. However, as an environment it obviously enables intelligent things to form and exist.
I actually find this to be something of a paradox somewhat reminiscent of the "Observer Problem." Something struck me as I read this post that reminded me of the Turing Machine in which none other than Alan Turing asked (in a nutshell) if we could could ever create a computer with artificial intelligence so refined that we could not tell the difference between a computer and another human being. In other words, if we asked a computer a series of questions, could a computer ever respond in a manner that would trick us into believing it was a human answering the question?
I've thought about this problem from time to time and I do feel that it is possible if we were to utilize game theory. My idea is somewhat complicated but I think it possible given this day and age of millions of internet users so let me try a rather feeble attempt at it. Could we write an "evolving" algorithm for a given computer generated character, let's say... an enemy in any particular video game? Given the fact that on any given video game, there reside maps and locations (spawn points) for the perceived enemy such as behind a pile of boxes, crates, etc... so that when our protagonist comes across them the monster, enemy soldier (or whatever it is) jumps out and you have to kill it.
As everyone who has ever played this sort of video game knows... After a certain point, the computer becomes predictable. You begin to pick up on subtleties that you didn't notice at first such as "This guy always jumps on top of the crates to shoot at me so next time I will aim above the crates as I approach the area." However, when someone plays a game online say, against another person, it is almost always unpredictable. It becomes very clear very quickly who is a computer-controlled character and who is a human playing against you via the internet. But, what if every time the computer-created creature died... The method, placement, actions, etc... of what led up to the "death" were loaded to a sort of central database where the algorithm for what that creature was supposed to do changed ever so slightly? In effect, using certain pre-defined entries such as how long it took for the "death" to occur, how many "kills" the creature was capable of before dying himself, and so on and so forth, the algorithm could use a mean average of "figuring out" what slight changes needed to be added to the next "spawn."
With the advent of the internet and millions of people playing any given game simultaneously, it would not take very long for this feedback loop to become extraordinarily large. Imagine if every player on the internet came across this "evolving algorithm" even once a day. It would allow for millions upon millions of repetitions of trial and error each day for the computer to become more and more advanced. I think (more like postulate) that possibly over an extended amount of time, the computer could become so extraordinarily unpredictable that it would serve, for all intents and purposes, as a human being. After time, I think humans would have a hard time figuring out which was the computer and which was the human simply because of the nature of the evolving algorithm.
I don't know if that would sufficiently answer the question that Turing proposed but I am focused primarily on invoking artificial intelligence to the point at which we would be curious about whether or not the enemy character was making decisions to run, jump, shoot, hide, etc... We might all wonder... Is it making the decisions or not??
Now, the problem with this in relation to the OP is that we intelligent beings would still be doing the "selecting." We would still have to create the computer code to operate this evolving algorithm and we would still have to operate the servers, controllers, etc... that fed into such a thing. In effect, our intelligence would be interfering with the production of said "Super AI."
But, then again, is there a way in which we could observe ANY of this happening without our interference playing some unsubstantiated part in the mix? We could, with lots and lots of time and resources, probably over several hundreds of thousands of years produce a very, very intelligent kind of chimpanzee by breeding the smartest chimpanzees with the smartest chimpanzees and so on and so forth (I assume). But, even so, our interference in the matter, no matter how small would still be interference on our part and would thus result in a healthy dose of skeptical criticism.
If we were to try and observe such a thing to any extent, it would almost certainly have to be in a controlled environment in which our interference with it could easily constitute us having intelligently interfered with the spawning of intelligence. In a weird sort of way, it's almost paradoxical because in order to answer this question we could only really look at past developments. Remember... If we interfere with the process by looking in on it, viewing it, or even trying to contain a given species of anything we have interfered with the experiment.
So the best we have is to examine how our own intelligence, the intelligence of chimpanzees or other apes, or even the intelligence of something such as a goldfish or cricket (which isn't necessarily very high - I was once relegated to goldfish level by a former girlfriend) could have arisen in the past. This is due to the events already having occurred and not being interfered with by we pesky mortals who tend to interfere with just about everything with our intelligent inquisitiveness.
Another example are cells. A single cell in and by itself I think can fairly be considered as non-intelligent. But it's pretty clear that intelligent things can result when cells are combined in large numbers.
As Kay02 stated, atoms are not intelligent either, but again, when large numbers of them are combined in certain ways, they can produce something that has intelligence.
Taking it a further step, I don't know that there's any evidence that the universe is intelligent. However, as an environment it obviously enables intelligent things to form and exist.
Call me crazy but sometimes I do toy with the idea that the universe is intelligent. I realize it's probably not but sometimes I can't help but think maybe.....
Call me crazy but sometimes I do toy with the idea that the universe is intelligent. I realize it's probably not but sometimes I can't help but think maybe.....
It doesn't have to be intelligent because it's an environment, but it does contain the components that allows for intelligence, considering we're proof of that. Perhaps one reason for toying with the idea is because the sheer size and complexity of it is more than our feeble brains can really comprehend. It seems mysterious. In addition, the more we learn about it, the more new and unexpected things we discover about it. Bs an environment, there's no question that there's a lot of activity going on throughout the universe, but I don't think it's any more intelligent than say a building. Things inside a building can show signs of an intelligence, but that's because of the occupants. The building itself isn't able to reason or contemplate its own existence.
The obvious reply is - yes. Unintelligent matter has produced us. but clearly the question is really as attempt to prove God by analogy. If only an intelligence can produce something intelligent, then something intelligent must have produced us.
It's in fact a good argument and, if it was not for the plentiful palaeontological and biological evidence that intelligence did not pop out of no-where but developed from the first cringes and wriggles of the Cambrian annelids through the foggy thought processes of the evolving animals and through the enlarging brain - cases of a succession of primates and here we are, it would still be the only argument we have.
But it isn't. It is a pointless question to make either as idle curiosity or as a bit of theist apologetics, since whether it seems likely to us or not, or whether there is any other example of it (1) the evidence is that is what happened.
It is possible to argue that the material universe and its laws combines into an intelligence of some sort. Perhaps even one that plans ahead. One could really call that a Transcendent Intelligent Being, or deist god or the god of Einstein. However, it's very moot point whether it is anything much bothered with us, whether it is anything we could relate to and anything that is in the slightest bit concerned about whether we let women into the Pulpit.
(1) for all we know, there is. Since we don't actually know how the first blobs and wrigglers came about, we might one day find the evolutionary process began in more than one way. Though the organic similarities do imply that we are all biologically related
Another example are cells. A single cell in and by itself I think can fairly be considered as non-intelligent. But it's pretty clear that intelligent things can result when cells are combined in large numbers.
As Kay02 stated, atoms are not intelligent either, but again, when large numbers of them are combined in certain ways, they can produce something that has intelligence.
Taking it a further step, I don't know that there's any evidence that the universe is intelligent. However, as an environment it obviously enables intelligent things to form and exist.
A very good answer for increasing or multiplying intelligence. But if you start with cells you have a bit if intellegence to begin with. They can reproduce, right? And react to their environment?
With the advent of the internet and millions of people playing any given game simultaneously, it would not take very long for this feedback loop to become extraordinarily large. Imagine if every player on the internet came across this "evolving algorithm" even once a day. It would allow for millions upon millions of repetitions of trial and error each day for the computer to become more and more advanced. I think (more like postulate) that possibly over an extended amount of time, the computer could become so extraordinarily unpredictable that it would serve, for all intents and purposes, as a human being. After time, I think humans would have a hard time figuring out which was the computer and which was the human simply because of the nature of the evolving algorithm.
All true. But more than just a feedback loop I think you would want the AI to be able to take an imperfect set of data and make a good guess, applying it to similar but not identical situations. Then it would be more than a library of exact, previously encountered situations. It would be able to guess or theorize about the best path to take, even if the AI had not experienced the situation before.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're all formed from atoms, I don't think they're intelligent. Or do you mean can two unintelligent things mate (like goldfish) and create something intelligent (like an ape)? I'm confused lol
